Comments about Tea Party unfounded

Published 6:23 pm, Tuesday, April 20, 2010

Comments about Tea Party unfounded

To the editor:

The Opinions column of April 16, "Taking the Tea Party on its own terms," by Janus Adams was very disappointing. The author indicates that, "Journalism requires more than second-hand observations, [and] gut feelings ..."

But she starts precisely with her ... gut feelings: "I admit it, I'm suspicious of the movement, its members." She follows with second-hand observations: her research is indirect and cursory, consisting of visiting three websites that confirm the prejudices she carries. Her slur that Sarah Palin encourages her supporters to chant for the death of President Obama is manifestly false. Participating in threatening the president would require the Secret Service to immediately arrest Ms. Palin and her supporters.

As a publisher of children's media, perhaps she can find a third-grader to correct the error in her first sentence (hoards for hordes). Your fine paper can do better than publish her amateurish, self-centered and erroneous rant.

Bill Drake

Greenwich

Some things you never forget

To the editor:

On your April 19 Opinions page, Mr. Al Barber, writing against legislation protecting child sexual abuse laws, as these pertain to the Catholic Church, states that the Hartford Courant's April 1 editorial, "correctly described why this bill (Raised Bill 5473) is fatally flawed: `Can an institution defend itself against charges going back many decades? Records are likely gone, witnesses' memories have grown unreliable.'"

I do think that Mr. Barber will agree with me that, if he had been raped by a priest "many decades" ago, or was a witness to such an act, his own "memories" of that event would be absolutely reliable until the day he dies.

John Stearns

Stamford

Himes should return money

To the editor:

Congratulations to Jim Himes for raising $2,106,974 as of March 30 for his 2010 re-election campaign. That is far and away the most raised by any of the five Connecticut incumbents running for re-election. Although this information is available on the Internet, none of this has thus far been reported, and I am not aware of Jim sending out any e-mail announcement or press release.

Most importantly, the leading source of Jim's contributions is Goldman Sachs, which many label as the crown royalty of Wall Street greed, and Goldman's employees and PAC. Goldman Sachs is under serious SEC fraud charges and formerly employed Jim as a senior executive. This really looks terrible, especially with Jim sitting on a congressional committee that oversees the financial services industry.

Regardless of what happens with the SEC charges, any claim Jim may make that Goldman's contributions do not influence him will not be perceived as credible by any of his constituents who are concerned about ethics. Jim should return the money now.

The inaccuracies and misleading, propagandistic statements in the letter didn't come from your newspaper. Your newspaper reported that the official U.N. agency responsible for examining nuclear sites was refused entrance to Iran.

Furthermore, the Associated Press reported that Iran supplies arms to and facilitates entrance of the terrorists who are killing our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The United States has stated that Iran is the prime supplier of arms and money to both Hezbollah and Hamas, declared terrorist organizations by both the United States and the European Union.

The interpretation of Islam that the mullacracy controlling Iran believes is that an international war will speed up the return of their "messiah."

Referring to Iran, the preeminent Islamic scholar Bernard Lewis, professor emeritus at Princeton University, states, "Mutually assured destruction is not a deterrent but an inducement."

Greenwich Time welcomes letters from its readers expressing all points of view. Unsigned letters are not published. Letters must include a home address and home and business telephone numbers for verification of each person who has signed. Those of 350 words or fewer are given preference and are subject to editing for length. While we cannot acknowledge letters that are not published, we do appreciate the interest of all who write. Letters may be e-mailed to us at: letters.greenwichtime@scni.com. Or write to us at: Letters to the editor, 1455 E. Putnam Ave., Greenwich, Conn. 06870.